Warren v. Carey
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for the obstruction of an ancient watercourse, described in the declaration as an “ ancient rivulet or stream,” which had existed beyond the memory of man. Answer, a general denial.
Read the full summary
Tort for the obstruction of an ancient watercourse, described in the declaration as an “ ancient rivulet or stream,” which had existed beyond the memory of man. Answer, a general denial. Trial in the Superior Court, before Thompson, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows : The evidence showed that the plaintiffs held the land which was alleged to be damaged by the obstruction of the watercourse under a quitclaim deed of trust from one Henry M. Clarke, in trust for himself and others, and that they brought this action as such trustees; that said land lay west of and…
1Opinion of the CourtW. Allen, J.
It must be taken from the terms of the exceptions, that the plaintiffs’ land was injured by water set back upon it in consequence of the obstruction by the defendant upon his land of an ancient watercourse, which flowed from the *80plaintiffs’ land through the defendant’s land. The declaration describes the watercourse as an ancient rivulet or stream, which had existed beyond the memory of man.
The exceptions state that the action was for damages for the obstruction of an ancient watercourse, and that the evidence showed that “ a ditch, with defined banks and bed, and of varying width, had for…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Craig v. LewisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Cobb v. FisherMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876